Matter of A-T- Inc

May 23, 2017 PM-602-0145 Policy Memorandum SUBJECT: Matter of A-T- Inc, Adopted Decision 2017-04 (AAO May 23, 2017) Purpose This policy memorandum (PM) designates the attached decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in Matter of A-T- Inc as an Adopted Decision. Accordingly, this adopted decision establishes policy guidance that applies to and binds all U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) employees. USCIS personnel are directed to follow the reasoning in this decision in similar cases. Matter of A-T- Inc clarifies that, in order to qualify for an H-1B numerical cap exemption based upon a master’s or higher degree, the conferring institution must have qualified as a “United States institution of higher education” at the time the beneficiary’s degree was earned. Use This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner. Contact Information Questions or suggestions regarding this PM should be addressed through appropriate directorate channels to the AAO.

2017年5月23日 PM-602-0145 政策备忘录 主题：Matter of A-T- Inc，2017-04号采纳决定（AAO，2017年5月23日） 目的 本政策备忘录（PM）将所附行政上诉办公室（AAO）在Matter of A-T- Inc中的决定指定为采纳决定。因此，本采纳决定确立了政策指导，适用于并约束所有美国公民及移民服务局（USCIS）雇员。USCIS人员被指示在类似案件中遵循本决定中的推理。 Matter of A-T- Inc澄清：为基于硕士或更高学位而符合H-1B名额上限豁免资格，授予机构必须在受益人获得学位时已符合“美国高等教育机构”的资格。 使用 本PM仅供USCIS人员在履行公务时作为指导。其不意图、也不、并且不得被依赖以创设任何权利或利益，无论实体性或程序性，可在法律上或由任何个人或其他当事方在遣返程序中、在与美国的诉讼中、或以任何其他形式或方式强制执行。 联系信息 有关本PM的问题或建议应通过适当的局渠道向AAO提出。

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

行政上诉办公室 美国公民及移民服务局

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

国土安全部

May 23, 2017 [1]

2017年5月23日 [1]

To qualify for an H-1B numerical cap exemption based upon a master’s or higher degree, the conferring institution must have qualified as a “United States institution of higher education” at the time the beneficiary’s degree was earned. FOR THE PETITIONER: Leena R. Kamat, Esquire, Dublin, California The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). H-1B visas are statutorily capped at 65,000 per year (H-1B Cap) but, as here, a petitioner may seek a cap exemption for beneficiaries who have “earned a master’s or higher degree from a United States institution of higher education (as defined in . . . 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)) . . . .” The statute also caps the number of exemptions at 20,000 per year (Master’s Cap exemption). 2 The Director of the California Service Center denied the H-1B petition, concluding that the Beneficiary did not qualify for the claimed Master’s Cap exemption. More specifically, the Director determined that the degree-conferring institution was not accredited at the time it awarded the Beneficiary’s master’s degree, and thus the Beneficiary had not earned his degree, as required, from a “United States institution of higher education.”

为基于硕士或更高学位而符合H-1B名额上限豁免资格，授予机构必须在受益人获得学位时已符合“美国高等教育机构”的资格。 申请人代表：Leena R. Kamat，Esquire，加利福尼亚州都柏林 申请人寻求根据H-1B非移民分类为专业职业临时雇用受益人。见《移民与国籍法》（该法）第101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)条，8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)。H-1B签证法定上限为每年65,000个（H-1B上限），但如本案，申请人可以为“从美国高等教育机构（定义见……20 U.S.C. 1001(a)）获得硕士或更高学位……”的受益人寻求上限豁免。该法还将豁免数量上限设为每年20,000个（硕士上限豁免）。2 加利福尼亚服务中心主任拒绝了该H-1B申请，认定受益人不符合所主张的硕士上限豁免资格。更具体而言，主任认定授予学位的机构在授予受益人硕士学位时未获认证，因此受益人未按要求从“美国高等教育机构”获得其学位。

Matter of A-T- Inc Adopted Decision On appeal, the Petitioner contends (1) that the Act does not require that the degree be from a United States institution of higher education at the time the degree is awarded, and (2) in the alternative, USCIS should have adjudicated the petition under the general H-1B cap if it was not eligible under the Master’s Cap exemption. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. As discussed below, timing is critical for both of these issues.

Matter of A-T- Inc 采纳决定 在上诉中，申请人主张（1）该法不要求学位在授予时来自美国高等教育机构，以及（2）作为替代，如果该申请不符合硕士上限豁免资格，USCIS应根据一般H-1B上限对其进行审理。 经重新审查，我们将驳回上诉。如下文所述，时间点对这两个问题都至关重要。

I. UNITED STATES INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION First, we must determine when a United States institution is deemed to be one of higher education for purposes of the Master’s Cap exemption. Here, the Beneficiary earned his degree from the International Technological University (ITU), in California, on December 31, 2010, before the university obtained its preaccreditation or accreditation status. The record contains a letter from ITU, stating that the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) granted ITU “Candidacy status” in 2011. 3 According to the WASC Senior College and University Commission website, candidacy status is the same as preaccreditation status. 4 The Petitioner asserts that the master’s degree does not have to be from a United States institution of higher education as of the time the degree is awarded in order to qualify for the Master’s Cap exemption. Rather, the Petitioner asserts that a beneficiary may qualify for the Master’s Cap exemption if the beneficiary earned a degree from an institution that qualified as an institution of higher education at the time of adjudication. We disagree. Eligibility for a Master’s Cap exemption is reserved for an individual who “has earned a master’s or higher degree from a United States institution of higher education (as defined in . . . 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)) . . . .” Section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act (emphasis added). In turn, an “institution of higher education” is defined, among other requirements, as a public or nonprofit educational institution that:

I. 美国高等教育机构 首先，我们必须确定，就硕士上限豁免而言，美国机构何时被视为高等教育机构。本案中，受益人于2010年12月31日从加利福尼亚州的国际技术大学（ITU）获得学位，当时该大学尚未获得预认证或认证资格。记录中包含ITU的一封信，称西部学校与学院协会（WASC）高级学院与大学认证委员会于2011年授予ITU“候选资格”。3 根据WASC高级学院与大学委员会网站，候选资格与预认证资格相同。4 申请人主张，为符合硕士上限豁免资格，硕士学位不必在授予时来自美国高等教育机构。相反，申请人主张，如果受益人从在审理时符合高等教育机构资格的机构获得学位，则受益人可以符合硕士上限豁免资格。我们不同意。 硕士上限豁免资格保留给“从美国高等教育机构（定义见……20 U.S.C. 1001(a)）获得硕士或更高学位……”的个人。该法第214(g)(5)(C)条（着重号为后加）。反过来，“高等教育机构”的定义，除其他要求外，是指符合以下条件的公立或非营利教育机构：

is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or if not so accredited, is an institution that has been granted preaccreditation status by such an agency or association that has been recognized by the [U.S. Secretary of Education] for the granting of preaccreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there

由全国认可的认证机构或协会认证，或者如果未如此认证，则是已获得此类机构或协会授予预认证资格的机构，该机构或协会已获[美国教育部长]认可授予预认证资格，且部长已认定存在

2

2

Matter of A-T- Inc Adopted Decision

Matter of A-T- Inc 采纳决定

is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time. 20 U.S.C. § 1001(a) (2012) (originally enacted as the Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-329, 79 Stat. 1219) (“Higher Education Act”) (emphasis added). The statute requires that the graduate must have “earned” a degree “from a United States institution of higher education” and, by definition, such institution “is accredited” or “is an institution that has been granted preaccreditation status.” The statute does not, however, expressly state whether the institution must have been (pre-)accredited at the time the degree was earned or at some different point in time when a relevant immigration benefit is adjudicated. For the following reasons, we construe these provisions to require that the institution’s qualifications must be established at the time the degree is earned. First, requiring beneficiaries to earn their degrees from institutions that, at a minimum, are preaccredited at the time the degree is earned helps ensure the quality of education necessary to merit a Master’s Cap exemption. 5 Assessing the institution’s qualifications at some later time – such as when an immigration benefit is requested for one of the institution’s graduates – does not advance those quality considerations. Second, we believe the Petitioner’s proffered interpretation – requiring (pre-)accreditation status at the time of immigration benefit adjudication – could lead to imprudent and unintended results. If, as the Petitioner asserts, the determination is based on whether the institution qualified as an institution of higher education at the time of the immigration benefit adjudication, then a beneficiary could qualify for the Master’s Cap exemption based on (pre-)accreditation that happens long after the degree was earned which would not necessarily reflect the quality of the beneficiary’s education. Conversely, a beneficiary who earned a qualifying degree from an institution of higher education, and who would have qualified for the Master’s Cap exemption, could subsequently become ineligible for the exemption if the institution lost its accreditation, in some cases long after the beneficiary earned a qualifying degree. Thus, the Petitioner’s proffered interpretation introduces uncertainty for graduates seeking immigration benefits over time. If we were to construe the statute that way, an individual’s eligibility for the Master’s Cap exemption would change along with the accreditation or preaccreditation status of his or her alma mater. In contrast, under our interpretation, an individual who earns a degree from a (pre-)accredited institution may continue to qualify for the Master’s Cap exemption even if the institution later closes or loses its (pre-)accreditation status. 6

令人满意的保证，即该机构将在合理时间内达到此类机构或协会的认证标准。 20 U.S.C. § 1001(a)（2012）（最初作为1965年《高等教育法》颁布，Pub. L. No. 89-329，79 Stat. 1219）（“《高等教育法》”）（着重号为后加）。 该法要求毕业生必须“从美国高等教育机构”“获得”学位，而根据定义，此类机构“已获认证”或“是已获授予预认证资格的机构”。然而，该法未明确规定该机构必须在获得学位时已获（预）认证，还是在审理相关移民福利的某个不同时间点已获（预）认证。 基于以下理由，我们将这些条款解释为要求该机构的资格必须在获得学位时确立。第一，要求受益人在获得学位时从至少已获预认证的机构获得学位，有助于确保值得硕士上限豁免所需的教育质量。5 在稍后某个时间——例如为该机构某毕业生申请移民福利时——评估该机构的资格，并不能促进这些质量考量。第二，我们认为申请人提出的解释——要求在审理移民福利时具有（预）认证资格——可能导致不明智和意外的结果。如果如申请人所主张，确定依据是该机构在审理移民福利时是否符合高等教育机构资格，那么受益人可能基于在获得学位很久之后才发生的（预）认证而符合硕士上限豁免资格，而这未必反映受益人教育的质量。相反，从高等教育机构获得合格学位、本应符合硕士上限豁免资格的受益人，如果该机构失去认证，则可能随后变得不符合豁免资格，在某些情况下是在受益人获得合格学位很久之后。因此，申请人提出的解释给随着时间推移寻求移民福利的毕业生带来了不确定性。如果我们那样解释该法，个人对硕士上限豁免的资格将随其母校的认证或预认证状态而变化。相比之下，根据我们的解释，从（预）认证机构获得学位的个人即使该机构后来关闭或失去其（预）认证资格，也可以继续符合硕士上限豁免资格。6

3

3

Matter of A-T- Inc Adopted Decision Because we interpret the statute to require that the institution’s qualifications must be established at the time the degree is earned, the date the Beneficiary earned his master’s degree is critical. 7 Here, the record does not establish that ITU was accredited or preaccredited in 2010 when the Beneficiary earned his master’s degree. Accordingly, we conclude the Beneficiary did not earn his degree from an “institution of higher education,” and he is thus ineligible for the Master’s Cap exemption.

Matter of A-T- Inc 已采纳决定 由于我们将该法规解释为要求该机构的资质必须在获得学位时即已确立，因此受益人获得其硕士学位的日期至关重要。7 在此，记录并未证明ITU在2010年受益人获得其硕士学位时已获得认证或预认证。因此，我们认定受益人并非从“高等教育机构”获得其学位，因而他没有资格享受硕士名额豁免。

II. ALTERNATIVE BASIS OF ELIGIBILITY

II. 资格的替代依据

The Petitioner contends that, even if the Beneficiary cannot qualify for a Master’s Cap exemption, USCIS should also examine his eligibility under the general H-1B Cap. The relevant regulation generally does not permit H-1B petitioners to claim eligibility under alternative grounds: “Petitions indicating that they are exempt from the numerical limitation but that are determined by USCIS after the final receipt date to be subject to the numerical limit will be denied . . . .” 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B) (emphasis added). The “final receipt date” is when USCIS notifies the public that it has received sufficient numbers of petitions to reach the H-1B Cap. The date a beneficiary’s cap exemption is “determined” is the date on which USCIS articulates its adjudication in a decision. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(19), 103.3(a)(1)(i), and 103.8(a). Here, the Director’s determination of cap exemption ineligibility was issued after the final receipt date, and so the petition was properly denied. On April 4, 2013, the Petitioner filed the H-1B petition which indicated that the Beneficiary’s master’s degree from ITU qualified him for the Master’s Cap exemption. 8 The next day (April 5th), USCIS issued a notice that, as of that date, it had received sufficient numbers of H-1B petitions to reach the H-1B Cap for FY14. 9 Therefore, April 5, 2013 is the FY14 “final receipt date,” for acceptance of cap subject H-1B petitions. Because the Director determined, after that final receipt date, that the Beneficiary was ineligible for a Master’s Cap exemption, the Director must and properly did deny the petition without considering eligibility under the general H-1B Cap.

申请人主张，即使受益人不能符合硕士名额豁免的资格，USCIS也应审查其在一般H-1B名额下的资格。相关法规通常不允许H-1B申请人依据替代理由主张资格：“表明其免于数量限制、但经USCIS在最终收件日期之后认定应受数量限制的申请将被拒绝……” 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B)（着重号为原文所加）。“最终收件日期”是USCIS通知公众其已收到足够数量的申请以达到H-1B名额的日期。受益人的名额豁免被“认定”的日期是USCIS在决定中阐明其裁定的日期。参见8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(19)、103.3(a)(1)(i)和103.8(a)。 在此，主任关于名额豁免不合格的认定是在最终收件日期之后作出的，因此该申请被适当拒绝。2013年4月4日，申请人提交了H-1B申请，该申请表明受益人从ITU获得的硕士学位使其有资格享受硕士名额豁免。8 次日（4月5日），USCIS发布通知称，截至该日，其已收到足够数量的H-1B申请以达到FY14的H-1B名额。9 因此，2013年4月5日是FY14受理受名额限制H-1B申请的“最终收件日期”。由于主任在该最终收件日期之后认定受益人无资格享受硕士名额豁免，主任必须且已适当地在未考虑一般H-1B名额下资格的情况下拒绝了该申请。

III. CONCLUSION The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for the Master’s Cap exemption.

III. 结论 申请人未证明受益人符合硕士名额豁免的资格。

4

4

Matter of A-T- Inc Adopted Decision ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. Cite as Matter of A-T- Inc, Adopted Decision 2017-04 (AAO May 23, 2017)

Matter of A-T- Inc 已采纳决定 命令： 上诉被驳回。 引用为Matter of A-T- Inc, Adopted Decision 2017-04 (AAO May 23, 2017)

5

5